5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kruševac.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 14 January 2003 the applicant’s brother (“the plaintiff”) filed a claim against the applicant with the Municipal Court in Kruševac (P. no. 63/2003). The claim concerned the validity of a “life-long maintenance contract” (ugovor o doživotnom izdržavanju) concluded between the applicant and their late mother in so far as it involved a house in which she had lived and the applicant’s acquisition of the title thereto following her death. The value of the dispute (vrednost spora) indicated by the plaintiff was 1,000 dinars (RSD/equivalent to approximately 15 euros (EUR)).
8. On 19 February 2003 the applicant informed the court in one sentence that he contested the plaintiff’s allegations and claim. He further stated that, in view of the main hearing scheduled for 27 February, he intended to lodge a comprehensive written pleading soon.
9. On 27 February 2003 the court formally stayed the proceedings (doneo rešenje o mirovanju) until 27 June 2003 as no one attended the hearing.
10.  On 23 June 2003 the plaintiff requested the continuation of the proceedings.
11.  The three following hearings, scheduled between September and November 2003, were adjourned due to problems with having the parties properly summoned or their own requests for adjournment.
12.  On 8 January 2004 the court held a brief hearing. The plaintiff reaffirmed his claim, stating that he would provide further evidence after the applicant had submitted his response to the claim (odgovor na tužbu). The applicant requested the court to discontinue the proceedings pending the outcome of another case. The court ordered the applicant to submit his response to the claim and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
13.  In his written response of 14 January 2004, the applicant from the outset requested the court to determine a realistic value of the dispute.
14.  On 12 February 2004 the court formally discontinued the proceedings (doneo rešenje o prekidu postupka) and requested the plaintiff to pay the court stamp duty (sudska taksa) calculated on the basis of the value of the dispute as initially specified by the plaintiff.
15.  On 4 July 2006, at the outset of the first hearing held in the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court formally established that the actual value of the dispute was RSD 600,000 (equivalent to approximately EUR 6,700). It further ordered the plaintiff to pay additional stamp duty, corresponding to the difference between the initially specified value of the dispute and that decided on by the court.
16.  On 5 December 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the impugned contract partially void. In so doing, it reaffirmed that the value of the dispute was RSD 600,000.
17.  On 27 March 2007 the District Court in Kruševac upheld this judgment on appeal, noting that the value of the dispute was RSD 600,000.
18.  On 22 May 2007 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (izjavio reviziju).
19.  On 5 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected this appeal. It found that the applicant was not entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law given that the value of the dispute in question, as specified in the claim of 14 January 2003, was RSD 1,000 and, as such, well below the applicable statutory threshold of RSD 300,000. The Supreme Court also noted, without any further explanation, that the determination of the value of the dispute on 4 July 2006 by the Municipal Court had been carried out in breach of Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Act.
20.  The applicant was served with the Supreme Court’s decision on 27 December 2007.
21.  In the meantime, on 23 November 2007, the Municipal Court ordered the applicant to pay court fees calculated on the basis of the value of the dispute set at RSD 600,000.
22.  The applicant has not yet paid this amount.